### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 April 3, 1998 lREVISED DRAFTREPORT ON CONSUMER RESEARCH FORCLOTHES WASHERS At the clothes washers standards rulemaking workshop held on March 11, 1998, participants requested that DOE expand the "Draft Report on Consumer Research for Clothes Washers." Enclosed is the revised report which now includes the major findings ofthe studies and projects. This report is available on the Office ofCodes and Standards web site. The web site address is as follows: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_ standards/index.htm. Based on discussions at the workshop, DOE staffhas begun to explore different approaches to obtaining additional consumer information pertaining to clothes washers. They have talked with a market research firm to discuss the use offocus groups as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Efficiency Standards. The market research firm suggested that DOE first conduct a qualitative survey ofconsumers consisting of4 to 6 groups of 10 to 12 people in various location. The groups would discuss the attributes that are most important to the consumer in an open-ended fashion. Based on the outcome ofthe focus groups a more detailed questionnaire could be developed, and a quantitative consumer research could be conducted with a telephone survey of400 to 500 ]people. An alternative to the detailed questionnaire would be to conduct a conjoint analysis i(conjoint analysis is a research technique that lets you determine the combination offeatures your product or service must have to appeal to a specific market or market segment) which could also quantify the attributes using a computer survey. At the workshop some utilities, who were already surveying their customers, indicated that they might include some questions from DOE. This could supplement any efforts initiated by DOE or it could be done in lieu ofthe focus groups. As part ofany ofthese activity, we would like to develop a list ofattributes that you feel are important to the consumer as a validity check. The enclosed report and the proposed options described above will be the subject ofthe ·conference call on April 28, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. E.S.T. The call in phone number is (202) 287-5323. Please let us know ifthis time is convenient fc:>r you. Alarge number ofpeople have expressed interest and we will attempt to coordinate the best time that is convenient for a majority ofthe people. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Mr. Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371 or Qonnie Laughlin at (202) 586-9632 orby fax (202) 586-4617.

Enclosure Sincerely, 

# >}Ji 

# !IL**t'~el** J. cCabe, Director Office of odes and Standards Office ofBuildings Technology, State

and Community Programs
. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

# @ Printed with soy ink on recycled paperDRAFT

DRAFfREPORT ON CONSUMERRESEARCH FOR CWTBESWASHERS

April 1, 1998

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY Environmental Energy Technologies Division

Techn.ology and Market Assessment Group
. Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT 

### OF ENERGY Office ofCodes and StandardsDRAFI' TABLE OFCONTENTS

· CONSUMERRESEARCH SUMMARY
....................·...................... 3 1.0 IN1RODUCTION
.................................................. 3 2.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
...................................... 3 3.0 SOURCES and PROJECTS
.......................................... 

### 4

. 

## . 3.1 Major Studies by Consortiums

. . . . . . . . ......... : . . ........·. . . . . . . 4 3.1.1 THELMA
..................... ·.. , ....... , ..........·4 3.1.2 Bern, Kansas Washer Study

............................ 12 3.1.3 WashWise

.......................................... 14 3.1.4 Northeast Energy Efficiency P.artnership (NEEEP)
........... 17 3.2 Individual Utility Deinand Side Management IMarket Transformation .Programs
.....: . · .....·..·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ·3.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)

- Utility Survey
. . . . . . . . . . . . · 18 3.2.2 Commonwealth Electric

................... : ........... 18 3.3 Consumer Publications

...·......................... · ....·. . . . . . . 20 3.3.l ConsumerReports I Consumers Union

.................... 20 3.3.2 Consumer -NewZealand publication

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.3 CHOICE
........................................... 21 3.4 Trade Organiz.ations

................,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.4.1 The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.4.2 Arthur D. Little (ADL) Report on the behalfofAHAM, 1991
... ·23 3.4.3 EPRI (Electric PowerResearch Institute) Journal

............. 24

. 3.4.4 American Society ofMechanical Engineers, Journal

. . . . . . . . . . . 

### 25 3.5 Government Projects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.5.1 Energy StarProgram
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.5.2 Commercial Laundry Field Study .· ....................... 27 3.5.3 MacDill Air ForceBase
..............................·. 28 3.5.4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 28 3.5.5 Fort Hood Government Procurement, DOD
................ 29.,

. .•

,: DRAFf 

### CONSUMER RESEARCH SUMMARY

1.0 Introduction

- Presentation ofConsumerResearch Tiiis report is a 

### summary ofconsumer research on clothes washers.·
2.0 Sources ofInformation

. - Listed below are sources ofinformation regarding consumerissues. Some programs are applicable to more than one general heading. 

### MajorStudies by Consortiums The High Efficiency Laundry Metering &Marketing Analysis (THELMA) Bern, Kansas IMaytag demonstration project WashWise

- Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA) Northeast Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP) 

### Individual UtilityDemandSideManagement (DSM) 

### IMarket Transformation Programs Pacific .Gas &Electric (PG&E, California) CommonwealthElectric 

### ConsumerPublications ConsumerReports (USA) Consumer (New Zealand) CHOICE (Australia) 

### Trade &

### Professional Organizations Soap & Detergent ASsociation American Home Appliance Association (AHAM) Electric PowerResearch Institute (EPRI) American Society ofMechanical Engineers (ASME) 

### GovernmentPrograms Energy Star Appliance Programs (DOE, EPA)

- D&R International and other ORNL

- Commercial Laundry Field Study · MacDill AirForce Base, DOD < Fort Hood Demonstration Study, DOD Fort Hood GovernmentProcurement, DOD

-3-DRAFT 3.0 SOURCES and PROJECTS 3.1 Major Studies by Consortiums 3.1.1 THELMA (The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering & MarketingAnalysis Project)**~mnson:** 

### . The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering

## & Marketing Analysis (THELMA) study is an Electric PowerResearch Institute Tailored Collaborative project sponsored by a consortium-of28 electric, gas, water and sewerutilities, as well as the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department ofEnergy. The project is being coordinatedthrough EPRI. Contractors: Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Phone: (608}232-2800 Dethman & Associates, Phone: (206) 545-0717 SBW Consulting, Inc., Phone: (206) 827-0330 National Center for Appropriate Technology, Phone: (206) 324:-8064 Arther

### 0.Little, Phone: (617) 498-5000 Objectives: The broad goals ofTHELMA are to acquire the information necessary for leveraging a lasting market transformation to efficient clothes washers and to design effective incentive programs and other·promotional tools for simulating the purchase ofefficient washers. Specific objectives include: • . Characterii;e status ofH-axistechnology. • Confirm savings estimates. • Assess customerlaundering habits. • Identify market barriers. • Suggest strategies for utility actions. Afethodologies: The THELMA report includes the following volumes.(not all are currently published): Volume 1 :Final Research Plan Volume 2: Laboratory Testing ofClothes Washers Volume 3: General Market Assessment Volume 4: Distribution Channels Volume 5: Produ·ct Demonstrations Volume 6: PrOduct'Users: In-Home Interviews Volume 7: Product Users:_Field**Monitoring,_~-** .. · Volume 8: Product Benefits and Target"MafketsDRAFT Volume 9: ProductUsers: FurtherEvaluations Individual THELMA repoi1 vobunes, organizedby tasks, are discussedbelow. 

### Ft.rture Work:

. Findings 

### of the THELMA project will be published in anine volume set. Four**volu~es** were made available toLBNL; all but the Laboratory Testing Report were draft documents. It is not certain when the other eight report volumes will become available to the general public. Additional field testing with the Neptune, Maytag was done but this report·is not available yet. There are currently no plans for EPRI to do additional work. · ·
3.1.1.1 THELMA Task2.1 Final Report Title: Results ofFocus Groupswith Consumen Date: June 1995 Report leader: Dethman & Associates Objectives: • Qualitatively assess the current market fe>r H-axis washers. • To explore consumer attitudes, rather than to measure them. • Identify and explore the educational needs ofconsumers. • Inform other THELMA research components. Nlethodologies: Washers: priortointroduction ofNeptune (Maytag); both top-loading and front-loading Haxis washers were discussed. Description: Focus Groups with Consumers. · Date: February 6-9, 1995. Location: Bellevue, Washington & Concord, California Sample size: Fourfocus groups of 10 people each (2 in each location). Sample demographics: selected by wash loads and income Rebates: None Topics covered included: • satisfaction with current washer • reactions to H-axis washer • interest in buying aH-axis washer • consumer descriptions ofH-axis washers

-5-

# .. DRAFT Findings: [fromExecutive Summary] Barriers to Acceptance ofH-axis Washers ..: . Awareness ofH-axis waShers was extremely low among focus group participants. • Participants reactions were initially quite negative to front-loading H-axis washers, based on old associations. They also were resistant to certain features, citing

. coneems**abo~t** the need to bend; leaking; child safety; and ease ofuse. (Participants**wer~** sho\vn photographs offront-loading and top-loading models; information and diagrams that compared the mechanical action·and cleaning technique ofV-axis and H-axis washers; specific details ofresource and cost savings). • · Participants viewed.top-loading H-axis washers as a cpnf\Jsing hybrid. They also had concerns about specific features (e.g., double door entry; the hatch always rotating to the top). • Even when given basic information about H-axis washers, participants had a · multitude ofquestions and concerns. The Appeal ofH-axis Washers • Most participants in the focus groups said they might considerbuying an H-axis washer ifit was equal to their V-axis washer in terms ofreliability, capacity, price, and convenience. · • Participants who spontaneously suggested H-aXis benefits were few in number and quite tentative. • Participants perceived that resource conservation is less important than other washer

.attributes such a8 ease ofuse and cleaning ability. • Participants rarely mentioned energy and water efficiency as key buying criteria; rather, they mentioned cost, reliability, large capacity, versatility, and easy use. Key Buying Criteria [from Results ofFocus Groups with Consumers, Draft] The most frequently mentioned buying criteria were: • Cost • Reliability and durability • Large capacity • Versatile features (e.g., water levels; wash speeds; temperature settings; rinse cycles; delicate settings; dispensers; etc.) • Controls that were easy to.use Factors that were occasionally mentioned ineiuded: ease ofhome maintenance; safefy features; gas vs. eleetricity; type ofagitator; noise level; aesthetics; length ofwash cycle. Energy and water efficiency were rarely mentioned, except in the context ofselecting the water level to match the load size.

-6-3.ll.1.3 THELMA Task 2.3 Draft Title: Laundry**Demonst~tion** Center Date: April 1996 Report leader: Dethman & Associates Objectives:

. DRAFf

The Demonstration Center's purpose was to introduce potential H-axis consumers to two .types ofH..:axis washers, and to collect their reactions to and insights about these washers. The primary objectives ofthe Demonstration Center were to assess**respondent~:** • Awareness and initial impressions ofH-axis washers. • Preferences for top-loading vs. front-loading H-axis washers. • Reactions to trying out an H-axis washers when they conducted a "test wash". •. Likelihood ofbuying an H-axis washer. • Questions about H-axis washers and reactions to H-axis utility**pro~am** ideas. Methodologies: Washers: • Participants were shown

## a top-loading and a front-loading machine, and they performed atest wash on the front loader. • Neptune washer (Maytag) was not involved. Description: Surveyed participants after demonstrating washers. Time period ofsurveys: November 7, 1995 to February 21, 1996. Location: Lynnwood, Washington (a suburban areajust north ofSeattle) Sample size: one hundred in depth interviews were conducted. Sample demographics: • Random from phone books covering neighborhoods near the demonstration center. • Participants who ·had some potential for buying 

## an H-axis washer were selected.· • Homeowners with at least $30,000 income • . Currently owned V-axis machines • Household did four or more wash loads perweek_

-7-DRAFf 

### ·Findings: [from Executive Summary]

, . What's Important in aNew Washer? • Capacity (51%)
. • Specific features such as dispensers, cycles (48%) • Efficiency (35%) (e.g., selecting cold wash rinse or adjusting waterlevel) • Reputation/reliability (31% ) • Purchase price (28%) Wlilat Initial Impressions Did Participants Have ofH-axisWashers? • One-third had heard ofresidential H-:axis washers; 15% had used one. • Just over a quarter ofrespondents said they would be eXt:remely orvery likely tobuy one. • Those less predisposed to H-axis washers most often cited "lack ofinformation" as the reason for their negative ratings; other**".<>nce~s** included front-loading issues (e.g., bending,

- leaking) and inferior performance. What Difference Did Hands-onExperience Make? Findings are based on two specific brands ofwashers, and therefore,.may not apply_equally well to otherH-axis machines, especially findings on specific product features. 

### Rf·sponse.to Front-load Washer (WasherA) • Perceptions on capacity changed. Over athird ofparticipants remarked that they could have added·more clothes. • Many asked for reliable data on the true capacity ofH-axis washers, and on the relationship between capadty and cleaning performance. • About halfthought the clothes**wou~d** get as clean and rinse as well as with their V-axis washer. • About halfwere unsure or expected inferior cleaning and rinsing. Respondents were confused about how clothes could get clean without immersion in water, or without the scrubbing action ofan agitator.

. · • Respondents wanted more hands-on proofabout the machines'sperfonn_ance under a variety ofreal life settings. • Appealing features included: overall appearance, quietness, gentleness on clothes, familiar controls, betterbalance, and the convenient dispensers for bleach/softener. • Areas ofconcern included: bending to load and unload, fear ofleaks, accessibility of oontrols to children, and dispenser_spills. 

### Response to Top-Load Washer (WasherBJ This was atop-load, horizontal axis washer. • Said they preferred the top-loading H-axis washer in theory but preferred the front:..loading H-axis washer because they felt the overall design was more logical, DJOre familiar from laundromat experiences, and more user-fiiendly.
-8-

### DRAFI'

. . • The majority ofrespondents who said they preferred atop IOader said they would neverbuy Washer B. Reaction to WasherB was dominated by negative response to-the latched opening used to enterthe 

### drum. as well as concerns about the machine's basic qu&Iity and finish. How Did Participants View H-axis Washers in the End? • Respondents were most likely to believe that H-axis washers did reduce wearand tear, but were less sure about their superior**cl~g/rinsing** ability and equivalent capacity. • Respondents were evenly split between those who said that the higher purchase price ($600- $800 purchase price) would deter them from buying an H-axis washer, and those who said it

. might be worth paying more, ifthe savings, superiorperformance and reliability ofH-axis

washers were proven. . · . • Two-thirds were impressed with improved efficiency and financial savings; others wanted prooforthought the savings were too small. • The number ofparticipants who rated themselves extremely/very likely to buy an H-axis

. washer had more than doubled (from 28% to 67%), after the interview and test wash. ·• Most respondents said they would need more information before actually buying an H-axis

. washer. Respondents required proven data about the H-axis washers' track record; ease of

. repair; efficiency/savings; cleaning, rinsirig, wear & tear; and capacity.
3.1.1.4 THELMA Task4 Draft Title: ImpactAnalysis · Date: October 1996 Report leader: SBW Consulting, Inc. (forEPRI Retail Market Tools and Services) Objectives: To assess energy and water savings in an "in-home" environment as compared to a laboratory setting. Laboratory testing can provide savings estimates but must make assumptions about peoples' laundry practices. In-home monitoring can provide estimates under more realistic and diverse conditions. Jvlethodologies: Washers: Two types ofH-axis washers were used. • WasherA was installed in 46 of50 sites. Itis afront-loading model that was

. officially released to the U.S. market in September 1996 by a major U.S. appliance

manufacturer. It has a maximum spin speed of650 rpm. • ·.Washer Cwas installed in 4 of50 sites. It is a front-loading model manufactured in Europe and available in the United States. Washer Crequires 220 Volt service and only a cold-water connection because it has an internal electric water heater.

-9-

### Findings: • Water savings ranged from 11to74percent with an average water savings of36 percent. • Energy is saved ifwarm or hot water is used fo.r washing or ifthe washer features ahigh spin speed. Average savings were 1.02 kWh/wash load. • Participants with-the H-axis Washer Areduced their load size by 4 percent. Those with Washer Creduced on average reduced their load size by 10 percent. • There was no significant change in the wash temperatures selected between the V-axis and H-axis washers. ·
3.1 :1.5 THELMA, Final Report Title: Laboratory Testing ofClothes Washers, Final Report Date: April 17, 1997 Contractor: ArthurD. Little, Inc. (ADL) Principle investigators: JDieckmann, DetlefWestphalen · Project Managers: R. Gillman, 

### J. Kesselring**~** Customer Systems Group, EPRI · Jhisreport was a continuation ofan earlier report ofthe same tide, published in December 1995. Principal investigators forthe earlier report (also by ADL) are: 

### JDieckmann, W. Murphy. An additionalwasher not previously available was tested in the updated report. 

### Objectives:

. To test energy and water consumption and other performance parameters discussed below.

-10-DRAFI'

. Methodologies: Washers: Number ofclothes washers tested: seven H-axis and one V-axis washers. Washers were labeled Athrough H. It is believed that a prototype Neptune (Maytag) was included in the testing. Clothes washers could be identified by noting theirunique specifications. Laboratory teStirig ofwasherto determine (for 8wa5hers): • DOE washer capacity • . Hot and cold water consumption • Energy consumption by·the washer mechanical drive • DOE energy factor • Water extraction effectiveness • Effect ofwater extraction effectiveness on ctrYer energy • Soil removal effectiveness • Rinsing effectiveness • Gentleness ofaction Findings: [from report Conclusions] • The normal wash cycle times ofthe eight H-axis machines ranged between 40 minutes and 110 minutes. The V-axis normal wash cycle required 3 7minutes. • The energy factor ofthe H-axis machines, as measured by the DOE test proCedure, was approximately 95% higher than the V-axis machine that was tested (i,e., H-axis energy consumption normalized to the basket volume is approximately 45%·less than V-axis). • The average water consumption ofthe eight H-axls machines, normalized to the basket volume, is 25% less than the V-axis machine·at maximum fill level and 10% less than the Vaxis at minimum fill level. • The H-axis washers tested all had higher spin G'sthan the V-axis machine, resulting in measurably lower remaining moisture content (RMC). , • Electric clothes dryer energy decreases linearly with decreasing RMC. • As agroup, the soil removal effectiveness ofthe H-axis washers, as measured by the AHAM soil removal test, was 50% greaterthan for the V-axis machine. • ·rhe average rinsing effectiveness ofthe H-axis washers was 50% greaterthan the V-axis washer. ' • The AHAM gentleness ofaction test results were comparable for H-axis and V-axis machines.



### -11:.3.1.2 Bern·/Kansas Study Title: Bern OotbesWasher Study

- Final Report Date: March 1998 : Report: ORNL/M 6382 · ·Sponsors: Department ofEnergy, Maytag Contractor: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Contacts:· DRAFT·

.. John Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Phone: (423) 574-0291

.. D.T. Rizy, 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory

.. LindaEggerss, Maytag, Phone: (515) 79.1-8518**WE~b** Site: www.energystar.gov**o~~ectives:**

.. To evaluate the e_nergy and water savings ofhigh-efficiency, H-axis washers in a community which bas been converted to the new design.

.. To detefmine the impact ofthe new washer on customers' laundry habits and perceptions

.. To demonstrate the findings and to develop information helpful to utilities (energy and water) and others with an eye towards moving the current clothes washer market to higher efficiency options. · Methodologies: Washers: Monitoring was done with the existing V-aXis washing machines in Phase I and with the Maytag Neptune H-axis washer in Phase Il

.. Description: Demonstration/monitor &metering study.

.. H-axis washers were installed in 105 homes in Bern, Kansas.

.. Interviews and questionnaires were used to determine the machfues users satisfaction with the washer. Dates: monitoring took place between June, 1997 and September 1997. Location: Bern,**Kansas~** a rural community with apopulation ofabout 200· Sample size: I05 homes Conditions: participants were allowed to keep washers after the study free ofcharge Data collectedon:

.. impacts ofload size

.. water consumption

.. energy consumption

.. detergent use and consumption

.. impacts on other additives

.. impacts on laundry habits

.. . .impacts on machine settings -12-

### ... .:


### ...

... . cleaning performance impacts on load dampness impacts on drying habits municipal utility impacts DRAFI'



### Findings: [fromExea.itive**S~** and Conclusions] • · oVerall, it was found that the changeoverto the H-axis washer reduced the average water consumption from 41.5 gallons/load to 25.8 gallons/load

- 

### awater savings ofabout 38%.**~** The H-axis washer's energy consumption including washer energy and hot water energy fell by 58% due to hot water savings and the impact ofahighly efficient motor in the**H~axis.** · ·... The remaining moisture content ofdanip loads removed from the H-axis washers wa5, on average, 7%lower than for loads removed from participants' V-axis washers.

... The data and subsequent analyses also showed that across all loads, temperature Settings, use ofdetergent and other additives, participantsfound the cleaning performance ofthe Haxis technology to be generally superiorto their Phase I washer irrespective ofits age. · • Participants seemed to adapt easily to the H-axis design, and laundry habits (average load
· weights, detergent use,.how loads were dried, when loads were washed during the week,

wash/rinse temperatures and otherfactors) remained largely unchanged from Phase I to Phase II. • Taken together, these findings suggest that a changeoverto H-axis technology delivers large savings in energy and waterto the customerwith an improvement in.cleaning performance

. and utility. ·

... The fraction ofloads in which participants were "completely satisfied" with the cleaning performance increased threefold from 15 to 45% in the changeoverfrom the average V-axis

. washerto the H-axis washerin the study.

...**Overal~** the study showed that the changeoverto the H-axis washer has little impact on the way in which customers washed and dried clothes.

-13----- - ------- -- - ----------

DRAFI'
3.ll.3 WashWise Title: Coming OeanAboutResource-Efficient OothesWashers: An Initial Wash Wise Program and Market·Progress Report- Final Report ·

. ReportNumber: E98-003

Date: Janwlly 28, 1998 

### Commissionedby: • Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA); comprised primarily ofelectric utilities in the PacificNorthwest. 

### Contractors: • Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PECI) • Gilmore Research • Pacific Energy Associates (PEA) 

### Contacts: • Northwest EnergyEfficiency Alliance TomEckman, Phone: (503) 827-8416 Gabriel Foulkes,"Phone: (503) 827-8416 x225 Ben Bronfinan, Phone: (503) 827-8416 x226 • Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PECI) Lois Gordan, Phone: (503) 248-4636 x207 • Pacific Energy Associates (PEA) David Hewitt, Phone: (360) 571-0497 Gary Smith, Phone: (503) 590-4609 • Gilmore Research Group Denise Bauman, Phone: (503) 236-4551 • Oregon Department ofEnergy Charlie**Stevens~** Phone: (503) 229-5625 

### JJ'eb site: http://www.nwalliance.org 

### Objectives: • To dramatically increase the market share ofresource-efficient clothes washers (RECWs) in the program area overthe next three years. • To influence the development and support ofmaximum energy and water efficiency levels for revised federal clothes washer standards.

-14-DRAFT Ml?thodologies: Washers: Atthe time the surveys belew were done, the Maytag,.Neptune H-axis washer was not on the market. Frigidaire, Staber and Europeans had horizontal axis washers · on the market. Description: This project has several aspects to it: • -a**te~ephone** survey of419 participants/purchasers ofRECWs as part ofthe WashWise rebate program (a rebate program funded by utilities) · • .an intercept survey of42 consumers shopping for laundry equipment • a telephone survey of205 appliance retailers
· • a telephone survey ofqualified representatives ofnine major appliance manufacturer and importers ofEuropean products Location: J>acific Northwest; Washington, Oregon, idaho, and western Montana
.' Gilmore Research conducted the following surveys: · • Participant Survey

- those who participated in the rebate program and bought an H-axis clothes washer. Consumers got a $130 instant rebate and dealers got a $20 rebate from the sponsoring utility. · • Intercept Surveys-·what people thought ofH-axis washers before they became participants and before they used the H-axis washers. • Retailer Survey (dealers)- how many they think they could sell. • Mariufacturer Survey -.predicted future H-axis sales. Pacific Energy Associates evaluated the program and discussed key findings in the report: Coming CleanAboutResource-Efficient Clothes Washers: AnInitial WashWise Program and MarketProgressReport.- FinalReport; January 28, 1998 This report includes analysis of: • reasons for purchasing aRECW; • satisfaction with WashWise program;

.. product pricing and RECWcost barrier; • manufacturer's perception ofthe RECW market; • opportunities for increasing RECW sales. Findings:

. Purchaser Survey. This·consisted of419 interviews with people**w~o** had purchased a RECW in the beginning months ofWashWise. • Demographics: 36% had incomes oflessthan $40,000 peryear, 390/o had household incomes between $40, 000 and $75,009 peryear. • Main reasons for purchasing aRECW were: energy orwater savings, 74%; cleaner
·clothes, 18%; and gentler on·clothes ,15%.

-15-11··. DRAFf
• 76% said that they would have purchased afront ioading washing**~chine** even if the rebate was not offered. · • · 95% said they were at least somewhat satisfied with each RECWfeature • 81% said the washer was worth the price • · 91% said they would recommend the**ma~hine** to others Intercept Sunreys (42**i~tenriews)** Of the forty-two ( 42)intercept interviews conducted, thirty-two (32) were customers shopping primarily for top-loaders, and ten (10) interviews were with customers looking for tumble-action washers. · • Top-load shoppers mentioned "high cost" more than anything else as a reason for buying a top-loading washer rather than atumble-action washing machine. • Thirteen (13) top-load .shoppers said they were shopping for atop-loader rather than atumble-action washerbecause the tumble-action machines were too expensive. •. Customers also reported that they did not wantto bend overto load 81ld unload the clothes (mentioned by 8 top-load shoppers). • Six (6) top-load shoppers reported that they were simply used to top-loaders. Retailer Sunrey (205 deafen) • Retailers believed that about halfofthe RECWpurchasers would have purchased a standard, top loading machine ifthe rebate were not available. • If the rebate were not offered, 57% thought the demand would slacken, then pick up again. • When retailers were asked to estimate the average price oftop loading machines that have similar capacity and features to the most populartumble actions washers. The median response was $500. · • Retailers thought 30% ofcustomers would be willing to pay $200 more for a RECW, and 50% would pay $100 more. • About halfofthe retailers believe that tumble action washers will dominate the market as consumers become more familiar with them. Manufacturer Sunrey (6 U.S., 3 lmporten) • Six U.S. based manufacturers ofclothes washers and three major importers were interviewed.
·• Manufacturers' estimates for RECW market share ranged from 2%to 25% in five years. Future Work: · . . Follow-up participant, consumer awareness/acceptance, appliance d.ealer, and manufacturers surveys will be conducted_in th_e Spring of 1998, and an evaluation/marketing report will be published in the second quarter of.1998 to document program success in terms ofmarket indicators and program accomplishments.
-16-/
DRAFT
3.1.4 Northeast Energy Eftic_iency Partnenhip (NEEP) R•ports: None at this time Spo11SOrs: Aconsortium ofutilities. Contractors: Sub-contractor: RLWAnalytics C;1ntact: BruceWall, Phone: (860) 620-0076 

### Web Site: future web site to be called: www.tumblewasher.org Objectives: The market for 

### high efficiency clothes washers will be evaluated. High efficiency clothes washers will be promoted. M'ethodology: Washers: Any washer meeting Energy Star performance levels is eligible; currently this means H-axis washers. Description: • Could characterize as amarket pull program; some participants 

### will have incentives, also consumer education will be done, point ofsales marketing promotions/education. • Baseline market research will include: surveys, focus groups, interviews with retailers, intercept interviews with consumers leaving the store. ( will follow up with repeat interviews ofthe same people 12 months later, who bought or didn't buy ahorizontal-axis washer) Location: • · Currently there are 18-20participating utilities and retailers covering S.4 million customers in all ofNew England, excluding Maine.

. • New Jersey is expected toJoin in 1999. New Jersey's 1998 program will include only new construction. Dates: Program will officially start on April 21, 1998, although some members ofthe partnership have already begun the program (e.g., Con-Electric).

. · Rebates: Some participants will have incentives to purchase efficient washers. Findings: The baseline market**re~ch** is completed. It is anticipated that results ofresearch will be made available to the public in the future.

-17- '·, DRAFI'**3.:~** Individual Utility Demand Side Management I MarketTransformation Programs 3.:!.1 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)

- Utility Survey Contact: Ted Pope, Phone: (415) 973-4856**Mi~thodologies:** Washers: • Currently all ·eligible machines are H-axis. • The Neptune was available·in the June/July time frame. Description: • Survey questions focused on participants satisfaction with their purchased H-axis machines. • Rebate program participants responded to an 11 question survey. Dates: Results from April through August 1997 Location: PG&E service territory (northern California) Sample size: 643 Rebates: • J,>G&E had a customer program where they gave rebates to consumers who bought energy efficient washers. ($75-$175 rebates). • In addition, waterutilities also provided rebates up to $75. Findings: Over 90% ofparticipants in a rebate program responded excellent orvery good when asked ifthey were satisfied with their washer. Future work: Additional survey data is being collected.
3
..2.2 Commonwealth Electric

- Utility Survey Contact: Dick Moran, Phone: (508) 291-0950 x 3548 &f ethodo/ogies: ·Washers: energy efficient washers Description: survey of**participant~**

## In a rebate program Date: a rebate program has been running since September 1997. Sample size: 175 Rebates: yes

-18-DRAFT

· Questions relevant to**~s** study include:

• Would you have purchased this 'WasherWithout a rebate? • Rate your washer (in comparison to old washer) in terms ofease ofuse, appearance, time to wash;and quality ofwash). · • Have you had any problems? Findings: ResponseS have not been officially tabulated, however, responses are leaning toward easier to use and overwhelmingly towards cleaner clothes.



### ·.

-19-DRAFf 3.3i ConsumerPublications**3.~1.1** ConsumerReports I Consumen Union Contact: Mark Connelly, Division Head -HomeEnvironmental Products, Phone: (914) 378-2325 Publication: ·July 1997 issue ofCo!JSUlllerRepOrts magazine

·Methodology:

• Clothes washers were evl!luated and rated • Evaluates: noise, washability and features

. • Compared 16 top-loading (V-axis) and 2 H-axis clothes washers • H-axis washers evaluatectwere: Frigidaire FWT445GE and ASKO 8005 (compact) Findings: • "To.get the best results with front-loaders, you need to use special detergent that can be expensive". • "Little is yet known about their [H-axis models] reliability". • Spot checks on wear and tear didn't verify that front-loaders were more gentle on clothes. • The Frigidaire did not**produ~** dryer clothes at the end ofthe spin cycle. • Front-loaders are generally quieter during filling and washing and abit noisier during the spin cycle. • The two front-loaders used less energy. • H-axis washers handled unbalanced loads betterthan others.
3.:3.2 Consumer

- New Zealand publication· Contact: Hamish Wilson, email: hamish@consumer.org Publication: September 1997 issue ofConsumermagazine.

·Niethodology:·

• Rated soil removal, spin efficiency, energy use, wateruse, gentleness, ease ofuse, cycle time, noise, detergent used. • Rated more H-axis washers than U.S
.. consumerpublications. • Tested four (4) H-axis washers and six (6) V-axis washers Findings: (results**pre~ented**in·barchart form) • Overall, H-axis machines**sc0r~** better on energy and waterusage. • Overall, H-axis machines scored better on**geiltlene"~s.** • Soil removal forH-axis and V-axis were 

### similar.
-20-3.:J.3**CHOICE~** (Australian consumer magazine) 

### P11blication: September 1997 issue ofCHOICEmagazine 

### Methodology: · DRAFf

• 21 washing machines were rated; 7H-axis, front-loaders and 14 V-aXis, top-loaders • Washers were rated/tested for: wash capacity, cycle time, noise, waterused, energy efficiency, spin efficiency, gentleness, and dirt removal. 

### Fi'ndings:

. • Based on a combination ofreasonable performance, purchase price and 10-yearrunning costs, the Best Buys were the GE and aHooverfront-loaders. • -"Notably higher scores than the top-_loaders (V-axis) for gentleness and water and energy efficiency." • Top-loaders (V-axis) wash and spinjust as**w~ll**

# as front-loaders, and they tend to have faster cycle times:" • Top-loaders (V-axis) are usually less gentle on your clothes.

-21-DRAFT**3.4~** TradeOrganizations 3.41.l The Soap and DetergentAssociation (SDA)' Publication: Detergents & Laundry Additives in**High-~fficiency**Washers Ccmtacts: Janet Donohue, Director ofCommunication, Phone: (212) 725-1262 Jane Meyer, Director ConsumerEducation, Phone: (212) 725-1262 Background: The Soap and Detergent Association is a national trade association (139 member), founded · in 1926. The Association represents the manufacturers ofhousehold, industrial and institutional cleaning products and those companies that supply ingredients and finished packaging to the industry. Over 90% ofthe cleaning products sold in the United States are made by SDA members.**M~thodology:** Not described, however, this document relies largely on data from tumbler washeruse in Western Europe. Powder detergent is used as the basis ofcomparison. · Summary: The Soap and Detergent Association made available apublication detailing information on detergents and their use in H-axis machines. (October 1996) Discussed are: • excessive sudsing_ • formulating detergents for high-efficiency H-.axis machines • watertemperature • lower water volume • clothes-to-waterratio • powderdetergents and laundry additives • load sizes

. • amount ofdetergent required • availability ofhigh-efficiency detergent Findings:**~** High-efficie!lcy tumbler washers raise special challenges when formulating effective detergents and laundry additives a. Suds are more readily created. Excessive suds can overflow the machine or·interfere with the washers'sproper operation.

-22-.DRAFT

.b. · Watertemperature can be lowerbecause thereis less waterto heat the wash .tub and

.the clothes.

. . c. Lower water volume makes 

### it more difficultto keep soils from redepositing on fabrics.. d.

. Lower water volume results in ahigher clothes-to waterratio. This creates agreater tendency for fabric dyes to bleed and transfer. · ' e. ·Powder detergents and laundry additives are harderto dissolve in cooler and less water.
• High-efficiency washer load sizes are expected to be comparable to current agitator capacities and load sizes, i.e., 7 pounds. • The amount ofdetergent required for effective cleaning is most closely related to the amount oflaundry and soil being washed , not to water volume. • As high-efficiency tumbler washers become more widely available, laundry detergents specifically made for these machines will also become available. [two brands are now available] • To achieve optimal cleaning performance in high-efficiency tumbler washers, detergents formulated for these machines should be used.

3.4.l ArthurD. Little (ADL) Report on the behalfofAHAM, 1991 Report: FinancialImpact of DOE Top LoadingHorir.ontalAxisStandards on U.S. Washing MachineManufacturers; AppendixA:Description of ConsumerSurvey Date: July 1991
. . SJPonsor: AHAM Objective: To determine the valuation byconsumers ofpotential top loading H-axis washing machiries relative to current products. lv.fethodology: Washers: side-by-side, hands-on comparison ofequivalent size, top loading V-axis and Haxis washers. Description: • Loading/Unloading Demonstration· • Card Sort/Conjoint Exercise · • Self-Administered Questionnaire • . Environmental Sensitivity Index (measured environmental sensitivity) Date: 1991 Location: Mall locations in Denver·and Indianapolis Sample size: 30I participants
-23-DRAFf Topics covered: • Features relating to: adding clothing,loading method, wateruse and detergent use were examined. · 

### Findings:

. • Many consumers significantly desire the features ofV-axis ,top-loading washing machines. • .Manyconsumer do prefer low energy cost units. • Washing machine price is the major determinant ofconsumerutility or satisfaction. • No substantial differences 

### in utility patterns exist between environmentally sensitive and
·average consumers. However, low and medium income**sub~groups** ofconsumers have

greater expected sensitivity to price

.. • Conjoint Results (Appendix A) : Consumer preference for purchasing awashing machine are: 

### • priCe, 49. l%; • energy costs, 20.3%; • ability to add more clothes, 11%; • loading method, 10.7%; • wateruse, 5.6%; and • detergent use, 3.3%. • See (Appendix B) for detailed results,ofthe selfadministered survey results

.**3.41~3** EPRI (Electric Power**~esearch** Institute) Journal 

### Publication: EPRI Journal, November/December 1997 Issue · "The New Line on Laundry" by Leslie Lamarre 

### Findings: • "Consumers also like the absence ofthe agitator (on H-axis machines), which frees up room for comforters, rugs, and otherbulky items they might otherwise have to take to the laundromat." This is an insight gleaned from the Four-yearEPRI, THELMAproject. • At this time, 84% ofconsumers are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own washing machines. Theirbiggest complaints are unb,alanced loads 

## and clothes tangling around the agitator. •· After in-home use, tests indicated that the capacity concern was more visual than actual. • The biggest barrier cited to buying an H-axis machine was the higher cost ofthe machines.

-24-DRAFf

. - . . . . 3.4.4 Mechanical Engineering

- Journal oftheAmerican Society .ofMechanical Engineen · Article title: Energy-efficient appliances ·Author: Steven Ashley, As_sociate Editor Date: March 1998 Summary:
. • The author discusses the design ofthe Neptune washer (Maytag)
.

. Findings:

. .

• The Maytag, Neptune has

# a maintenance-free, low-noise, high-efficiency motor with infinitely variable-speed·control. • The Maytag team solved the bend-and stoop problemby tilting.the spinner axis ofthe stainless-steel tub up 1 S**de~ees** and makfug the opening as large as possible.

-2S-·DRAFT :3.•5 Government Projects 3.5
..1 Energy StarProgram 

### Contacts: Bill Noel-Partnershipsmanager, DOE, Phone (202) 586-6149 Lee Bodner-Programmanager; D&R International, Phone: (301) 588-9387 Mary Myers-D&RInternational, Phone: (301) 588-9387 Jamie Treworgy- D&R IntematiOnal, Phone: (301) 588-9387 Marc Lafrance

- DOE, Phone: (202) 586-8423 · 

### Background: Energy Star is ajoint project ofthe U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) and the

. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This collaboration concentrates on educating consumers about the benefi_ts ofhighly energy efficient home appliances, consumer electronics, office equipment and building materials. 

### Programs: • Demonstrating new Technologies in "real world" settings Example: Bern, Kansas IMaytag Washer study
• Volume Purchases Large institutional buyers, such as housing authorities, are organized to pool their resources.
• Energy Star Appliance Program (formerly the Retailer Initiative) Aretailer initiative pilot programto promote high efficiency washers. The DOE will place "Energy Star" labels on efficient washers to help consumers differentiate them from other machines; making it easierfor consumers to recognize efficient appliances. Alist ofenergy efficient clothes washers is listed at the energy star web site: http://www.energystar.gov.
• Financing Programs

_ The DOE is also working on financing programs with Fannie Mae, and working with

. utilities and retailers to determine the best ways to communicate efficiency benefits to

consumers.
• Energy StarManufactured Homes Program DOE ,Washington State University, and the Idaho Department ofWaterResources are working with regional manufacturers to include high efficiency residential appliance, including clothes washers, in manufactured homes.

-26-.. DRAFT En,ergyStarParticipants**repo~ed**August97: • SMUD (Sacramento MunicipalUtility District) • ·Southern CaliforniaEdison • SDA&E (San Diego Gas & Electric) · • Potomac Electric Power Co._· • · · Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany • · WisconsinPublic Serviee • Portland Energy Conservation Inc.
3.5i.2 Commercial LaundryField Study

· · CommiSsionedby: Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Maytag Contractor: John Tomlinson, ORNL, Phone: (423) 574-0291 Sub-contractor: Ayers Associates, CH2M Hill · Objective: To measure and compare energy and wateruse before and after changing to an energy efficient clothes washer. · Methodology: · _ Washers: 10 residential V-axis washers were replaced by Maytag H-axis washers Description: • Energy monitoring and metering study • Main laundry room selected with 10 washers • · Washers average 115 cycles per month· Location: Tampa, Florida apartment complex with 100 units Findings: (Contact Tomlinson for more detail)

. ! After replacing V-axis washers with H-axis washers: • wateruse was reduced by 38%, · • hot wateruse was reduced by 400/o, • machine energy reduced by47%, • 69% were satisfied orver}' satisfied with the cleaning performance ofthe V-axis washer, • 97% ofcustomers interViewed were either satisfied orvery satisfied with the cleaning ·performance ofthe H-axis machine

..

-27-

# ..**------~--~~---------;;.,** --------



### .. 

# ....
3.5.3 MacDill AirForceBase Commissionedby: Department ofDefense 

### Contact: John Tomlinson, ORNL, Phone: (423) 574-0291 Subcontractor:**~yers** Associates

. . 

### - Objectives: [from presentation by Toiillinson on July 18, 1997] • Improved awareness ofbenefits. • Information dissemination to facility managers. • Information on load siZe. · 

### • 1echnicaJ evaluation Methodology:
· Washers: V-axis large Speed Queen replaced by 5Frigidaire, 1Creda Description: · DRAFT

• Energy and water use study in two apartment laundry rooms used by Army barracks. • Measure energy/water consumption; measure load ·siie • Customer impressions/habits Incentives: H-axis machines contributed to project by manufacturers Findings: (Contact Tomlinson for more detail)(from presentation by Tomlinson on Juiy 18, 1997) • H-axis washer (B) showed an increase in cu.ft IkWh of 190% over V-axis washer 

# w. .. . • H-axis washer (B) showed an increase in lb I kWh of230% over V-axis washer (A).
3.5
..4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study (metering study) Commissionedby: Department ofDefense, Forces Command-·Department ofArmy 

### Contacts: • Greg Sullivan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Phone: (509) 372-6212 • Graham Parker, PNNL•.Phone: (509) 375-3805 Methodology: Washers: • Baseline washers are Roper residential washers.

. • On premise laundry machines (like commercial washers without a coin box)

.. • Plan to monitor Staber, Maytag, & Amana washers (atotal of 18 washers).

-28-·•.. I DRAFT

Findings: CurrentStatus (3-23-98): • Have monitored/metered Roperbaseline washers for two·months. • Are currently monitoring Staberwashers and have two months worth ofdata. • Report expected in early summer of 1998.**3.~i.5** FortHood GGvernment Procurement

- DepartmentofDefense Commissionedby: Department ofDefense, Department ofArmy Suinmary: • Government procurement program. • Army bought approximately 1,200 StaberH-axis washing machines during the summer/fall of 1997.

-29.: